forget the counter benefits of “muchncleaner” streets, lower crime rates, andn”far more efficient” public transportationnthan is found here.nAs much as Soviet leaders rail againstnthe iniquities of American capitalism, thenreader suspects that they are actuallynquite pleased to have a Harvard scholarnequate their problems with those of thenU.S. In framing the comparison Galbraithncomes dangerously close to the officialnparty line. His aim in offering this analysisnof the superpowers is “to contribute anlittle to the understanding and confidencenthat are essential before realnprogress on arms reduction is possible.”nA survey of the wnofficial views ofnmillions of average Russians and Russiandominatednpeoples, however, would revealnthat Galbraith has fostered dangerousnmisunderstanding and false confidence.nFor the U.S.S.R. is a land besetnwith radically un-American woes.nTo begin with, when told that he waitsnhours in line to get a couple bars ofninferior soap not because there is anshortage of soap but because there is annoversupply of money, the averagenRussian factory worlcer would laugh innMr. Galbraith’s well-meaning face. AnRussian housewife who has for yearsnendured bare shelves and long May Daynparades would hoot at the idea that shenlives in a “consumer-oriented economy.”nThe suggestion that Russia doesnnot control the Polish economy wouldnmeet with even more bitter derisionnfrom Solidarity members. The streets arenclean, every Russian knows, becausenpaper is far too scarce to litter. Butnmillions of innocent Soviet citizens whonhave ridden the rails to forced laborncamps in Siberia could confirm Mr. Galbraith’snreport concerning public transportation:nlike Mussolini’s, communistntrains are always on schedule. Dnlii’Hsilyn^ otablesnKi-fi-ntly. wliik- vLsiting an aflliK’ntnMibiirh (oiif ol’lhosi- iiLighborluiDilsnwlii’iv all oI’lliL’ inhahitanls si-cm lo biiirhannprol’i’sslDnal.s. cvi’ii tliosi- innlk•.»i^ln.•r iliaptT^). vi’ pitki-d up a top) iil’nl.irid. which i.s ihc .>ii-i()in.l novel innLi\rnn.’i-l)iirivirs//>t’.r/)i;/;f)Hy«/Hh7.nofwhiih Schdsliiiu i» Killing I’ussfoiisn(Viking 1’R-N.S: .New ^ork). his most ri-ii-ntnnoxcl. i> till.- loiirth. Thi.’ tlcrk at thenboDksloiv vsas \i-arin}j a Ilawaiian shin,nkhaki >hi)rls. I’lip SidiTi. and Kay Hann.siinglavn Ihcohiigalorx siring thai isnusuallyassoiialcdwilhancicnl lihrarian.s.nVs thf iliTk rang up /.//vVt hi- could notnhelp i-xilainiing: “.Xwwwrighll U’i’s hearnil lor Liw[vncL- Diirivll! rhi-iv’s.i piiUirLolhininand ik-nrv .Miller, in bed. Two oldnniL-n. Ki-adini> soniL-lliing—I doni known\hal. Il’s so … iiv!” \i- li’ll a piiuh ol’npily I’or llu: young man hi’hind ihcnI’ounUM’: he- obviously iiiiagincd thai henknew (111-essenci-ol’.NV«W(‘//)/H,;’. \V I’dtnmore sorrow I’or Durrell. who is simplynmisiiiulersln I y siv ihe mi )vie?nDurrell ereales svslems. n readerneoming uiSchtislhiH w iihout ihe precedingnhooks will lind hiniseli amongndramatis personae who are aclingin waysnIhat are unusual hv most slandard.s. hiilnwhich are consisienlw ilh iheircharaeter.nNo pan oI’Durreir.s work can be undersioodnin isolation: ihe whole ol’hisncreation must lirst he assimilaled. I )urrellnis a dangerous writer. His works do notnbelong in the hands oilools or children.nThey have an unearned repulalion I’ornbeing somehow pornographic. Thevnshould be ri-si-rved tor the strong-hcarleilnlew who can face such a challenge anilnlearn to enjov one of the lew writers whonis truly a novelisi in ihe grandest .sen.si- ol’nIhe word.nBEFORE YOU MOVE …nTo assure uninterrupted delivery of Chronicles of Culture, please notifynus in advance. Send this form with the mailing label from your latestnissue of Chronicles of Culture to: Subscription Department, Chronicles ofnCulture, P.O. Box 800, Rockford, Illinois 61105.nNAMEnADDRESSnCITY STATE- ZIP.nnn•39nDecember 1984n